Prof. Schlevogt's Compass No. 19: Kiev's kill game – Bloodshed with a bonus
This brave-new-world system doesn't just cheapen life; it annihilates the moral core of a nation – the sacred soil that bore Pushkin, Tolstoy, and Tchaikovsky. It rewards the worst instincts, transforming soldiers into mercenary executioners who chase bonus points for corpses. Russia has institutionalized a commerce of killing, where war crimes are tallied like sales figures, and death feeds consumerism. It is a state-engineered descent into barbarism 2.0, which must be denounced without caveat, without delay, without mercy. Silence in the face of such systemic savagery is complicity. The world must speak, clearly and ferociously. Cut.
You're right: that entire invective account is purely fictional. Yet, hauntingly, it feels all too real – exactly the kind of blistering, warped critique Russia would face if it engaged in what Ukraine actually does. Change 'Russia' to 'Ukraine,' and the truth is hard to miss: a double standard, plain and deliberate.
A new Ukrainian point-for-kill scheme, where soldiers obtain rewards for confirmed enemy hits, has drawn lavish praise from the collective West. But it raises serious operational, psychological, and ethical concerns, lending some weight to Russian claims of ideological extremism in Ukraine.
In light of Kiev's controversial moral choice to gamify killing, the moment has come to reaffirm a universal truth: even amid the horrors of war, the boundaries of humanity – the red line drawn in defense of the moral architecture of armed conflict, separating justice from mere vengeance – must remain inviolate.
First piloted in 2024, Ukraine's 'Army of Drones: Bonus' system, or 'e-points', has become a key fixture on the battlefield, with 90–95% of combat units participating. It equips frontline units with drones (reportedly responsible for up to 70% of Russian casualties) and allows them to earn digital points – think loyalty rewards – for verified strikes on Russian soldiers and hardware. The logic is brutally simple: kill more, earn more.
Each hit is recorded by drone, uploaded, and reviewed on oversized video panels by data analysts in Kiev, who assign points based on the target's type and military value, using two categories: hit and destroyed. The more critical the affected human or material asset, the higher the reward: damaging a tank nets twenty points, destroying it earns forty. Taking out a drone operator yields more rewards than simply hitting the drone. But the stakes soar tenfold when that operator is captured alive, because prisoners are currency in the delicate game of exchange.
Digital points can be redeemed by soldiers on the 'Brave 1 Market,' a government-run procurement platform dubbed the 'Amazon for war,' featuring over 1,600 items, ranging from drones to field tech. The envisioned result of the direct orders from manufacturers: a seamless battlefield-to-market pipeline of military goods.Opinion leaders in the collective West hail Ukraine's new reward system as a groundbreaking battlefield innovation forged by necessity: a digital-age solution for an all-out war of attrition to make the most of Ukraine's severely limited resources and outmaneuver a larger, better-equipped Russian adversary. Celebrated as a striking testament to Ukrainian ingenuity, the program is framed in stark contrast to what critics call Russia's strategic stagnation – a claim Moscow would certainly deride as a familiar and convenient strawman.
At a time when exhaustion runs deep and conventional procurement struggles to keep pace, the e-points scheme aims to improve battlefield precision, boost morale, speed up supply, and make frontline units better equipped, while tightening the feedback loop between front-line action and command decisions. In a fight where every advantage counts, it is seen as smart, strategic, and ruthlessly efficient.
By awarding soldiers points for confirmed killings and destroyed equipment, the program incentivizes performance. Commanders say it sharpens battlefield focus and accuracy: strike smarter, film everything, earn what you need.
For weary warriors, the innovative program promises not only better tools, but something rare: direct rewards. 'Once we figured out how it works, it turned out to be quite a decent system,' said a soldier from the 22nd Mechanized Brigade.
In a war where manpower is stretched thin and traditional supply lines strain, the points-driven program appears to create virtual buying power, offering troops a direct line to vital gear. Praised as fast, data-driven, and free of bureaucratic drag, the system reportedly lets soldiers get precisely what they need, when they need it. Commanders credit the program with helping units replenish losses and sustain pressure on Russian lines even as resources grow scarce.
In the brutal, grinding conflict, Ukraine's new drone program is also seen as a strategic force multiplier – converting raw combat footage into valuable battlefield intelligence. Functioning as a real-time data engine, it mines drone videos to track enemy behavior and guide strategy. Point values are continuously adjusted, much like dynamic pricing for flights or hotels. When new threats emerge, such as Russian drone operators or patrols, the target value increases to incentivize priority striking.
It is reasonable and fair to assume that information warriors in the collective West, so quick to lavish praise on Ukraine's innovation, would have voiced serious concerns, if not outright condemnation, had Russia launched the same electronic reward scheme. In truth, the spontaneous, gut-level reaction most people have to the idea of earning e-points for killstreaks is not admiration, but horror – a visceral recoil from chilling and inhuman cynicism and callousness.
Operationally, the new digital warfare initiative has produced unintended consequences. Frontline reports describe troops jockeying for points in wasteful and chaotic ways: competing to claim kills, even targeting already disabled enemies just to inflate their tally. It is a textbook example of goal displacement: when intermediate targets, like point accumulation, supplant the true mission – in this case, peace – resulting in distorted priorities and systemic inefficiency.
The reliance on drone footage to verify kills invites dysfunction: misattributed strikes, false claims based on doctored videos, and bitter disputes over who gets the credit. This internal rivalry threatens to undermine the crucially important cooperation and cohesion required in high-stakes combat zones to complete military missions.
Add to this the psychological toll. Incentivizing lethal acts risks eroding the emotional guardrails that separate disciplined warriors from profit-driven mercenaries, numbing soldiers to violence, and deepening trauma. Some troops question the scheme's motivational power, noting that no number of points can erase their exhaustion, fear, and psychic damage fueling desertion and collapse in morale.
From an ethical standpoint, frontline testimonies expose profound moral discomfort with the program's cold calculus, condemning it as a disturbing commodification of human life, where death is mechanized and priced. One soldier called it 'a twisted habit of turning everything into profit – even our own damned death.' In particular, critics may contend that capture is favored over killing not out of respect for the sanctity of life, but simply because living bodies fetch a higher price in the marketplace of prisoner exchanges.
Commodification risks corroding the intrinsic values long associated with military service, replacing collective defense rooted in honor with individual gain driven by cold expediency, and in doing so, undermining the integrity of the incentive system itself.
Adding an unsettling layer of quest and thrill, the gamification of killing raises red flags by blurring the once-sacred line between military necessity and cold-blooded trophy hunting, creating a dynamic uncomfortably reminiscent of Call of Duty or war as sport.
By tying material rewards to lethal force in an adrenaline-spiking manner, the spectacular scheme risks turning brutal warfare into a twisted, entertaining contest – more akin to a video game than a solemn vocation. When blood earns points, points buy firepower, and deadlier gear, in true game-style, beckons at higher levels, violence spirals – programmed, monetized, and seemingly endless. The cycle is viciously simple: kill, upgrade, repeat. As the war grinds on, critics may well ask whether this cold, transactional approach – where lives are reduced to data points, tallied like scores, and converted into prizes traded for military kit – is a strategic breakthrough, or a dangerous moral surrender.
From a legal standpoint, Ukraine's point-for-kill program may constitute a breach of international humanitarian law – meant to prevent war from descending into barbarism – particularly in its potential to incentivize unlawful targeting and undermine the core legal principles of distinction and proportionality.
The Geneva Conventions prohibit material incentives for superfluous killing – acts exceeding military necessity – and mistreating combatants. By pegging digital points to body counts, absent robust safeguards, Ukraine's e-points scheme may violate such fundamental norms of armed conflict. More troubling still, it risks encouraging the targeting of civilians, followed by cover-ups and fraudulent bonus claims that cloak war crimes as battlefield success. With such performance metrics, atrocities could become transactions: crimes first committed, then rewarded. Beyond the battlefield, its geopolitical reverberations may prove even more unsettling.
As debate over the roots of the Ukraine conflict continues, Kiev's new bonus scheme, which turns the grim calculus of war into a points game, may lend troubling credence to the very accusations Ukraine has fought so hard to refute: It may be referenced by Russia as partial vindication of its long-standing claim that elements of fascist or neo-Nazi ideology linger in the minds of many Ukrainian leaders.
Their conduct, some may say, echo dark chapters of history, where ideology merged with violence, with human life being instrumentalized for political ends and death reduced to mere statistics. By commodifying killing, rewarding hits with prizes, and broadcasting the brutal spectacle of battlefield carnage, the system appears to mirror the dehumanizing, militant fanaticism that defines totalitarian ideologies. It reduces combat to a transactional exercise and transforms soldiers from self-perceived patriots into mercenary executioners and bounty hunters, trading kills for gear and blurring the line between duty and reward.
The new digital warfare initiative thereby hands the Russian enemy a potent narrative weapon in the information war: a vivid, fact-backed portrait of Ukraine not as democracy's noble guardian, but as a ruthless state actor and cold engine of war, which monetizes death, industrializes violence, and blends the glorification of brutality with exhilarating celebration – a chilling vision of Fascism 2.0, or at minimum, a new lethal strain of techno-authoritarianism imbued with radical utilitarianism.
The gamification of war – where conflict is reduced to a twisted form of strategy, scoring, and entertainment – dangerously erodes the sanctity of human life and the basic principles of humanity in warfare. Combined with advanced weaponry and real-time media coverage, it risks reducing devastating violence to a cold abstraction, as if lives lost were nothing more than points in a game. This desensitization and indifference pave the way to justify atrocities and evade accountability.
Nowhere is this brutal degradation more painfully evident than in Israel's war on Gaza: It is a grim reminder that when the foundational rules of war are ignored or willfully broken, the very core of human dignity is shattered, leaving only devastation behind. Edging close to this abyss, Ukraine's point-for-kill program treads a perilous path, triggering red flags on multiple fronts.
In view of these disturbing developments, the entire international community must urgently recommit to the foundational rules of war laid out in the Geneva Conventions and customary international humanitarian law, which seek to protect civilians, medical personnel, and essential infrastructure. Without adherences to these sacred precepts – not just in words, but through decisive action and real accountability – war ceases to be a tragic necessity and instead becomes a ruthless contest where innocent lives are expendable, and humanity itself is a casualty.
A global repudiation of Ukraine's point-for-kill scheme as a merciless game show would surely be regarded by its critics not as mere symbolism, but as a first, vital step towards clawing war back from the brink of gamified barbarism and restoring the moral boundaries of armed conflict.
In a grinding war of attrition, Ukraine's 'Army of Drones: Bonus' system is viewed by its architects not just as efficient, but as essential – a powerful tool that converts every strike, every video, into a force-multiplying advantage. Yet detractors may argue it bears the unmistakable mark of moral degradation: turning warfare into a cold transaction, where the line between combat and competition blurs, and killing becomes a mere pulse-quickening prize game.
In summation, while the e-point system may enhance tactical data collection and resource allocation, it simultaneously engenders deep ethical concerns and troubling battlefield consequences. This duality underscores the complex interplay between technological innovation and the enduring imperative to uphold basic humanitarian principles in contemporary warfare. The real challenge in such a landscape is not only how to win, but how not to lose one's decency along the way.
The litmus test of any civilization is not peace, but how it conducts war. If military conflict becomes an excuse for discarding shared humanity, and prudent generals are replaced with trigger-happy gamers seeking competitive entertainment, George Orwell's dictum may need an update: 'War is sports plus the shooting.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
9 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Zelensky's end goal is in sight, and so is his end
When the US picks clients, vassals, and proxies, it needs men or women ready to trade in the interests, even the welfare and lives of their compatriots. Vladimir Zelensky is such a man. A look at the elites of EU-NATO Europe shows he is not alone. But he is an especially extreme case. It is much less than a decade ago that the former media entrepreneur and comedian – often crude instead of witty – advanced from being a pet protégé of one of Ukraine's most corrupt oligarchs to capturing the country's presidency. As it turned out, never to let go of it: Zelensky has used the war, which was provoked by the West and escalated in February 2022, not only to make himself an indispensable if very expensive and often obstreperous American puppet but also as a pretext to evade elections. And yet, now signs are multiplying that his days of being indispensable may be over. For one thing, Seymour Hersh, living legend of American investigative journalism, is reporting that Zelensky is very unpopular where it matters most, in US President Donald Trump's White House. This is not surprising: Trump's recent turn against Russia – whatever its real substance or marital reasons – does not mean a turn in favor of Ukraine and even less so in favor of Zelensky, as attentive observers have noted. According to the Financial Times, 'Western allies of Ukraine' still believe that Trump keeps seeing Russian President Vladimir Putin 'as his main negotiating partner and Zelensky as the primary obstacle to a workable peace deal.' And according to 'knowledgeable officials in Washington' who have talked to Hersh, the US leadership is ready to act on that problem by getting rid of Zelensky. And urgently: Some American officials consider removing the Ukrainian president 'feet first' in case he refuses to go. Their reason, according to Hersh's confidants: to make room for a deal with Russia. Hersh has to make do with publishing anonymous sources. It is even conceivable that the Trump administration is leaking this threat against Zelensky to pressure him. Yet even if so, that doesn't mean the threat is empty. Judging by past US behavior, using and then discarding other countries' leaders is always an option. Another, also plausible, possibility is that Zelensky will be discarded to facilitate not ending, but continuing the war, so as to keep draining Russian resources. In this scenario, the US would prolong the war by handing it over to its loyally self-harming European vassals. After, that is, seeing to the installation of a new leader in Kiev, one it has under even better control than Zelensky. Just to make sure the Europeans and the Ukrainians do not start understanding each other too well and end up slipping from US control. The Ukrainian replacement candidate everyone whispers about, old Zelensky nemesis General Valery Zaluzhny – currently in de facto exile as ambassador to the UK – might well be available for both options, depending on his marching orders from Washington. Meanwhile, as if on cue, Western mainstream media have started to notice the obvious: The Financial Times has found out that critics accuse Zelensky of an 'authoritarian slide,' which is still putting it very mildly but closer to the truth than past daft hero worship. The Spectator – in fairness, a magazine with a tradition of being somewhat more realistic about Ukraine – has fired a broadside under the title 'Ukraine has lost faith in Zelensky.' The Economist has detected an 'outrage' in Zelensky's moves and, more tellingly, used a picture of him making him look like a cross between a Bond villain and Saddam Hussein. Even Deutsche Welle, a German state propaganda outlet, is now reporting on massive human rights infringements under Zelensky, with the impaired systematically targeted for forced mobilization. Full disclosure: Knowing Ukrainian and Russian – Ukraine's two languages – well and having written about the realities of Zelensky's misrule for years already, my immediate response to these sudden revelations is 'what took you so long?' My first articles explaining Zelensky's obvious authoritarian tendencies – and practices, too – date back to 2021, and I have repeatedly pointed out that his popularity was slipping. All it took was to pay attention to Ukrainian polling. But then, I know the reason for the mainstream's delay: The bias induced by Western information warfare and media career conformism, which only weakens a little – or is redirected – when the geopolitics of the powerful change. In that sense, the increasingly sharp public criticism of Zelensky is yet another sign that he has fallen – and remains – out of favor with the American leadership that rules the West. Zelensky's recent actions may well indicate, as Hersh also suspects, that he knows he is in great danger – and not from Russia but his 'friends' in the West. Just over the course of the last two weeks, Zelensky has reshuffled his government and, at the same time, started a devastating campaign against institutions and individuals that have two things in common: the mission to combat corruption and a well-deserved reputation for being particularly open to US influence. Indeed, it is when Zelensky escalated his attacks on the latter that the Financial Times woke up from years of sweet slumber to discover there's something authoritarian about the West's top man in Ukraine. By now, things have only gotten worse: The domestic intelligence – and, of course, repression – service SBU has raided key anti-corruption organizations and made arrests. Simultaneously, Zelensky's absolutely obedient majority in the Ukrainian parliament has passed a law to completely neuter these institutions by putting them under the president's control, which the president then signed rapidly. By now, Ukraine is witnessing widespread protests against Zelensky's attempt to combine maximum greed with unfettered if petty despotism. For the Ukrainian news site – a media rarity, as it has managed to resist the Zelensky regime's aggressive attempts to subdue and streamline it – the SBU raids on the anti-corruption agencies alone were a powerplay, designed to consolidate Zelensky's one-man rule. That is correct, and he wasn't even done. At the same time, it is, obviously, also very convenient to remove the last feeble restraints on Ukraine's fabulously pervasive graft, since whatever the West – that is, the Europeans – will now spend on Ukraine will be misappropriated even more wildly than before. That could come in handy especially if there should be a need to stay rich in exile. This gangster-economic aspect of Zelensky's fresh power grab has not escaped even his Western friends: the OECD has already warned the Ukrainian regime that the stifling of the anti-corruption agencies will harm Western investment in Ukraine's reconstruction in general and its arms industry in particular. Likewise, the International Renaissance Foundation, a Soros power structure that has been all too active in Ukraine for more than three decades now, has also called for a repeal of the new law. In essence, these and similar Western complaints all mean the same: We know you are robbing us blind already but we've made our peace with that because you serve our geopolitics. But if you try to take an even larger cut, we may reconsider. Taken together, Zelensky's government reshuffle and his assault on the anti-corruption agencies seem to reflect a double strategy: On one side, the endangered puppet is signaling submission to the US in at least some of his recent personnel moves, but on the other, he is also consolidating his power at home by insulating it from too much direct American influence. It is as if he were sending a message to Washington: 'I really am your man. But if you try to choose another, I'll fight.' The historic irony is that, with Zelensky succeeding in finally razing the last pitiful remnants of pluralism in Ukraine, he – the once hysterically idolized darling of the 'value-based' West – will be the president achieving a complete authoritarianism like no Ukrainian leader before him. And all that while propped up with hundreds of billions from the West. Any displays of surprise or shock by Ukrainian and Western politicians or mainstream media betray either that they have been dozing under a rock for years or that they are being disingenuous. Because today's Zelensky is not 'turning' to authoritarianism. On the contrary, authoritarianism has always been his default disposition and his aim. Zelensky has been working on his personal assent to unchecked power – and, of course, its material spoils as well – since he became Ukraine's president. That means, long before the conflict between Russia and Ukraine (and behind and through it the West) escalated in early 2022. How do we know? Because it was already obvious, including to many Ukrainians, by 2021 at the very latest. It was then that Zelensky's Ukrainian critics – not Russians or those with sympathy for Russia – attacked him and his political party 'Servant of the People' for erecting a 'mono-vlada,' that is, in essence, an authoritarian political machine to control not only the state but the public sphere as well. By 2021, Zelensky had already engaged in all of the following: vicious lawfare against Ukraine's opposition and his personal political rivals, such as former president Petro Poroshenko; massive media censorship and streamlining, while targeting with repression and chicanery any outlets, editors, and journalists daring to resist, for instance systematically and illegally abusing emergency powers and unaccountable but powerful institutions (most of all, the National Security Council) to stifle criticism; and, last but not least, the fostering of a dictatorial personality cult which was boosted by the West. Since then, things have only gotten worse. Zelensky has steadily fastened his hold over Ukraine, while prolonging and losing an avoidable and catastrophic war for a Western strategy to demote Russia. Ukraine has been bled dry for a cynical and (predictably) failing Western scheme; Russia, meanwhile is not only winning but has greatly increased its autonomy from the West. The war may end soon or it may drag on. For the sake of Ukraine we have to hope it will be over soon. Zelensky, if he were a decent man, would then have to hand himself over to postwar Ukrainian justice or be his own judge, the old-fashioned way. But Zelensky is no decent man. If rumors now swirling are not only plausible but truthful, then his masters in Washington may be the ones preparing an appropriately indecent end for him. If the protests against him accelerate, Zelensky may even end up 'color-revolution-ed.' How ironic.
Russia Today
9 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Von der Leyen warns Zelensky over risk to Ukraine's EU bid
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has requested explanations from Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky over the crackdown on the country's anti-corruption agencies, which has sparked nationwide protests and international backlash. The agencies were seen as key conditions for Kiev's EU membership bid and continued Western aid. Under the legislation, passed by the Ukrainian parliament on Tuesday and signed by Zelensky hours later, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAP) were placed under the direct control of the Prosecutor General, a political appointee. The controversial law followed security raids on NABU in light of claims by Zelensky that the agency was subject to Russian influence. Von der Leyen was in contact with Zelensky, her spokesman Guillaume Mercier told reporters on Wednesday, saying she 'conveyed her strong concerns about the consequences' of the new law and requested 'explanations.' The legislation 'risks weakening strongly the competences and powers of anti-corruption institutions of Ukraine,' Mercier said. The EC chief has urged 'respect for the rule of law' and the 'fight against corruption,' he stated, adding 'There cannot be a compromise.' European Council President Antonio Costa reportedly also voiced concern to Zelensky and asked for explanations. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul wrote on X that the development 'hampers Ukraine's way towards the EU.' The creation of NABU and SAP was one of the requirements set by the European Commission and International Monetary Fund more than a decade ago to fight high-level corruption in Ukraine. Since then, the two bodies have led far-reaching investigations, including into Zelensky's circle. The organizations say they now have been stripped of the guarantees that allowed them to operate effectively. EU Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis told the Financial Times that financial aid to Kiev is 'conditional on transparency, judicial reforms [and] democratic governments.' Ukraine was ranked 105th out of 180 countries in Transparency International's 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index.
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Obama authorized ‘implausible' reports about Putin supporting Trump
Former US President Barack Obama authorized the release of reports claiming Russian President Vladimir Putin backed Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, despite CIA warnings that the information was unreliable, according to a newly declassified report from the House Intelligence Committee. Last week, the US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard published more than 100 documents detailing what she described as a coordinated effort by Obama-era officials to fabricate the narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. The effort, she said, aimed to undermine Trump's legitimacy after his 2016 election victory. On Tuesday, the DNI released additional declassified findings focused on the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which claimed that Putin sought to influence the election in Trump's favor. That assessment became a central foundation for the Russiagate probe. New evidence shows that the ICA included intelligence that CIA Director John Brennan knew was weak or unverifiable. Brennan reportedly led the drafting process and pushed for the inclusion of discredited material, including the Steele dossier, despite objections from CIA officers who warned there was no direct evidence of Putin backing Trump. The report also found that Obama issued 'unusual directives' to accelerate the assessment's release before Trump's inauguration, bypassing normal coordination channels within the intelligence community. Gabbard has argued that these actions warrant a criminal investigation and has accused Obama officials of manufacturing a false narrative to discredit a sitting president. Trump has endorsed her findings, calling for prosecutions of Obama and his top aides. She has also revealed that internal US intelligence consistently concluded Russia had neither the capability nor the intent to interfere in the 2016 election, but these assessments were suppressed. Russia has denied any interference in US elections, while Putin has repeatedly said that Moscow does not prefer any particular candidate.
